Delay of Game Penalty: An ode to hindsight

"The puck over the glass rule may be my fault."

My jaw dropped. And I might have gasped. I didn't mean to. This is, after all, the commissioner of the American Hockey League, David Andrews, we're interviewing and I'm desperately trying to hold together whatever professionalism I've been able to muster.

But, really, who admits this? Does anybody appreciate that forehead slapper of a penalty? Is there anybody who watches a player launch an unfettered puck into the crowd on a clearing attempt who thinks, "Yeah, you deserve 2 minutes for that. Lousy cheating punk." Of course not. Pucks just want to be souvenirs sometimes. They need a rule for that?

So, I guess it takes a certain kind of guy to say, essentially, that one's on me. At least he appeared rather contrite while talking about how, prior to the lockout year, he sold the idea to the AHL board, consisting of representatives from both AHL and most NHL teams, who voted it in unanimously.

"First of all, it would give an advantage to the offense, which all those rule changes that year were about creating more offense," Andrews explained the rationale. "So, why would you let somebody fire it over the glass to take the heat off?"

"Secondly, we'd not long before that put the netting up, so if we make it a penalty to throw it into the crowd and there's some kind of safety benefit, great."

The argument seems rather thin in hindsight, and Andrews' tone seems to acknowledge this. Confession is good for the soul though. I respect this.

But after one season, it was voted out just as unanimously. "The coaches hated it. The players hated it." Andrews said coaches felt they were losing games because of the rule, that the rule was excessively punitive.

"In a perfect world, that rule would not apply if you were a man short, in my opinion," Andrews said.

"All of a sudden, it's a 5-on-3 and basically an automatic goal. And that's a big price to pay for the puck clearing the glass instead of chipping off someone's stick or chipping off the glass or whatever."

The "over the glass" delay of game penalty stuck in the NHL after the league resumed play post-lockout, and returned to the AHL this season to align the league with the NHL rulebook.

Andrews was blunt that they don't always like the rules they have to implement in the name of the NHL and this is one of them. Still, both leagues see such alignment as a necessity given the number of players who shuttle back and forth between leagues (over 200 this year alone).

He also said he has not seen anything noteworthy coming down the pipe for next season and rules should be relatively status quo. He does anticipate some calls for the 3-man shootout to apply in the AHL, but Andrews is willing to push back on this one.

"[It] would be a mistake. If you like the shootout, 5 is better. If you don't like the shootout, 5 is better. The reason people don't like the shootout is it's not a fair way to decide it, but if you're going 3 shooters, first goal wins pretty much," Andrews said.

Asked about the points allocation for wins and losses (currently 2 points for a win and 1 for an overtime or shootout loss), he said the subject has not come up in a while and he didn't expect it to change.

The league has run the numbers to see if points allocation changes (such as 3 for a regulation win, 2 for a SO/OT win and 1 for a SO/OT loss) would have affected the standings and the answer was no.

"It didn't really change what was happening there, and it just gave an appearance of greater gaps between teams" making leads in the standings look nearly insurmountable in the current paradigm, Andrews explained.

So, don't expect the rules of the game to look too different next season. And don't be too hard on Andrews for that "over the glass" thing. I get the feeling he'd take it back if he could.

More on AHL in the Southwest from the Stars POV

Just got this across my Google reader from Mike Heika, the Dallas Stars beat writer, on the Dallas perspective on the team shuffling that's on the horizon in the AHL.

One comment... he mentions expansion of the league, but David Andrews yesterday was very clear that that was not an option. There are 30 franchises (one dormant) and 30 NHL teams. Period. And, as John's post mentioned, putting an AHL team in competition with the CHL team in OKC is an unwelcome proposition.

The thought I have on this is that I know the CHL has dibs on an arena going up for the 2010 season in the Independence/Kansas City, MO area but no team yet. Perhaps they ship the OKC CHL team to MO, and replace them with Edmonton AHL team in OKC.

(Bold Prediction: At some point, one of us will bust out YouTube video of music from Oklahoma! before this is all over.)

Anyway, it all kinda makes my tiny brain spin, but it's interesting to hear what Dallas is thinking. And it's interesting to ponder the idea of FOUR teams in the southwest.

AHL Commissioner David Andrews Talks About Franchise Relocation

“Information is power, right?” AHL Commissioner David Andrews told us last night. And he’s probably right about that, but now we’ve got some information, and I’m not sure that I’m more powerful. But the commissioner shared this information with us, so I’m more than happy to share with all of you.

If you’ve been paying any attention the past several weeks – especially if you’ve been reading us – then you know that franchise relocation is a major topic around AHL circles. Hopefully, I can now provide some answers to lots of those questions.

THE QUAD CITY FLAMES

The primary relocation issue involves the Quad City Flames. And David Andrews is clear when it comes to the Flames. “Quad Cities is clearly not going to have that AHL team next year,” he said. And while he wouldn’t completely rule out a team in the Quad next season – “stranger things have happened” – Calgary should have sent the paperwork into the office this past week – he’s been out of the office since Wednesday and expects to see it when he returns to his office.

Andrews said that the AHL has a strategic plan that it’s following, and that trying to move the league is part of that plan. “Our strategic plan had talked about strengthening our geography,” he said. “And adding Austin fits our strategic plan, and adding Abbotsford does not fit our strategic plan.”

But despite that, he thinks the move will be approved. The league still has to go through a due diligence process in terms of the membership and relocation applications before the issue goes to the board around the end of April. The primary problem standing in the way of the move is Abbotsford’s location. “It’s a long, long way from other teams in our league,” he said. “They have committed to paying travel subsidies which would fully compensate our teams for the air travel to get out there. That certainly will help. I think that without that, the move had no chance. With it, it will still be somewhat of a challenge.”

Three-quarters of the ownership must approve the relocation, which means that eight negative votes could torpedo the deal. He thinks the vote will be close, but he thinks that it will be approved.

“The Calgary Flames have been owners in our league, partners in our league, for 25 years or more. They’re good partners,” he said. “They’re an NHL team, and strong financially, and they believe it’s going to be a very successful market, Abbotsford. There’s a building. There’s lots of momentum behind it. I think a lot of our owners will look at it and say, they’ve been a good partner, they are a good partner, and if they want to go there, as long as it’s not out of pocket for us financially, they’ll support it.”

SPRINGFIELD FALCONS

It was reported the other day that the Edmonton Oilers will be ending their deal with Springfield following the 2010-2011 season, and that they will be seeking to move Springfield to Oklahoma City. In the interim, Edmonton is supposedly trying to entice the Dallas Stars to put a team in Oklahoma City for next season.

“Let me first tell you that Edmonton doesn’t own the Springfield franchise,” Andrews said. Edmonton does own an AHL franchise, but that franchise is inactive whereas Springfield is owned by a group in Springfield. The only thing the AHL is sure of is that “Edmonton has told us that they won’t be Springfield after next year.”

Edmonton/Springfield is important to Texas because of the effect that this has on the plans for the AHL team in Austin.

“The simple solution would be if Edmonton sold their franchise to Austin. We’d be all set,” he said. “But that’s not what Edmonton plans to do. They want to continue to own it.” The franchise is inactive because, essentially, it was too successful. Edmonton moved their AHL team to Edmonton during the NHL lockout, and the team attracted 10,000 fans a game. Apparently, Edmonton was afraid that the Roadrunners AHL team would detract from the Oilers attendance, so the team went inactive.

“They do want to activate their franchise,” Andrews said. “They’re not interested in selling it to Austin. They pay a very hefty fee, and have been now for three or four years to keep the franchise inactive.”

But Edmonton’s indecision regarding this franchise is making things a bit difficult for the AHL. “So they will do something with it,” Andrews said of Edmonton. “Which leaves me with a bit of a quandary because we have only 30 franchises. We’re not going to expand because there’s only 30 NHL partners. And the 30th that we’d like to put in Austin is sitting in Edmonton not available.”

And an AHL franchise in Oklahoma City is only a rumor that’s not about to happen, despite Edmonton visiting the city. There is a CHL franchise in Oklahoma City, and the AHL does not want to interfere with the operations of the CHL.

AUSTIN

Despite Edmonton’s actions with its inactive franchise, Andrews is pretty confident that the AHL will have a franchise in Austin come the start of next season. “I think there’s a very good chance we’ll be in Austin next year,” he said. “Better than good.”

The team that will come to Austin next season will come to Austin in the same way that the Quad City Flames will be coming to Abbotsford, franchise relocation. While Andrews wouldn’t reveal any teams, he made it clear that there are several candidates for Austin.

“We are in discussions with Austin and with a couple of other teams in our league which might have an interest in selling. That should play itself out over the next three-to-four weeks,” he said. “As a league we really want to be there. The Dallas Stars are a pretty good ownership group, Hicks Sports. And it’s a good fit for Houston and San Antonio. We’re going to make every effort to make that happen.”

MISCELLANEOUS

We also briefly discussed the Philadelphia Phantoms who, after this season, will be without a Philadelphia arena. The team is being sold to a group from Pittsburgh, and hopefully, within 3-4 years, will be playing in the Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania around Allentown and Bethlehem. But what happens to the team in the interim is still up in the air. There’s a very, very, very, very slight possibility that the Phantoms could be in Austin next season, but Andrews was really dismissive of that and said that Austin isn’t a real option.

So hopefully our little talk with David Andrews has provided everybody with a few answers about what the AHL might look like next season.